| The backdrop of this thesis is the theory of criminal liability of the superior in international criminal law. According to this theory, a superior, either belonging to the military or a civilian, may be found criminally liable because of crimes committed by his subordinates, if he failed to warn them or punish them after the fact. Recognized as valid ground for personal criminal liability since World War II, the theory of criminal liability of the superior was codified in the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court. In this Statute, negligence is an acceptable standard to find a military superior criminally liable. In other words, liability is incurred if the military superior should have known that his subordinates were committing war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide even if, in fact, he did not have such knowledge. Specifically, this thesis will explore the link between the concept of superior responsibility and the standard of negligence. The nature of both concepts will be analysed in a comparative perspective, borrowing from international, Canadian and French law.;The author begins with a review of the theory of superior responsibility, exploring its history, its triggers and its nature. The author then studies negligence as a concept, both in internal and international law to see in what context this standard is acceptable. Then, the author explains why the standard of negligence was accepted as a valid ground for criminal liability of the superior, and assesses the wisdom of this decision. |
